Transition to oral beta-lactam therapy in uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Michael Dore, Ryan Duffy, Laura Caputo, Lily Huang, Salvatore Sidoti, Sarah Cantrell, Blair Glasgo, Christa Kerbow
{"title":"Transition to oral beta-lactam therapy in uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Michael Dore, Ryan Duffy, Laura Caputo, Lily Huang, Salvatore Sidoti, Sarah Cantrell, Blair Glasgo, Christa Kerbow","doi":"10.1002/jhm.70041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Gram-negative bacteremia (GNB) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Transition to oral therapy has traditionally utilized fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole rather than beta-lactams due to concerns about pharmacokinetics and bioavailability despite a dearth of clinical data. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of transition to oral beta-lactam therapy in uncomplicated GNB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a meta-analysis of published articles in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to September 2024. Inclusion criteria included any study with adults (age >18 years of age) with uncomplicated GNB from any source. Primary outcomes included 30-day all-cause mortality and 30-day antibiotic failure rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight retrospective cohort studies were reviewed comprising 7500 patients. Twice as many patients were in the fluoroquinolones/trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group compared with the beta-lactams group (4998 vs. 2482). Patients in each group had similar average age (70 vs. 71), percent male (54% vs. 56%), percent urinary source (78% vs. 80%), duration of IV antibiotics (4.2 vs. 4.5), Pitt bacteremia score (1.1 vs. 1.4) and Charleston comorbid index (2 vs. 2). There was no statistically significant difference in the 30-day all-cause mortality rate between the fluoroquinolones/trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and the beta-lactams group: 2.06% versus 1.89% with a weighted relative risk ratio of 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-1.77) or the 30-day antibiotic failure rate: 2.08% vs. 3.42%, weighted relative risk ratio of 1.29 (95% CI: 0.97-1.71).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality or antibiotic failure rates between BL and FQ/TMP-SMX as transition to oral therapy in treating uncomplicated GNB.</p>","PeriodicalId":94084,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospital medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.70041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Gram-negative bacteremia (GNB) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Transition to oral therapy has traditionally utilized fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole rather than beta-lactams due to concerns about pharmacokinetics and bioavailability despite a dearth of clinical data. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of transition to oral beta-lactam therapy in uncomplicated GNB.

Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of published articles in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to September 2024. Inclusion criteria included any study with adults (age >18 years of age) with uncomplicated GNB from any source. Primary outcomes included 30-day all-cause mortality and 30-day antibiotic failure rate.

Results: Eight retrospective cohort studies were reviewed comprising 7500 patients. Twice as many patients were in the fluoroquinolones/trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group compared with the beta-lactams group (4998 vs. 2482). Patients in each group had similar average age (70 vs. 71), percent male (54% vs. 56%), percent urinary source (78% vs. 80%), duration of IV antibiotics (4.2 vs. 4.5), Pitt bacteremia score (1.1 vs. 1.4) and Charleston comorbid index (2 vs. 2). There was no statistically significant difference in the 30-day all-cause mortality rate between the fluoroquinolones/trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and the beta-lactams group: 2.06% versus 1.89% with a weighted relative risk ratio of 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-1.77) or the 30-day antibiotic failure rate: 2.08% vs. 3.42%, weighted relative risk ratio of 1.29 (95% CI: 0.97-1.71).

Conclusions: There is no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality or antibiotic failure rates between BL and FQ/TMP-SMX as transition to oral therapy in treating uncomplicated GNB.

过渡到口服β -内酰胺治疗无并发症革兰氏阴性菌血症:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
革兰氏阴性菌血症(GNB)与显著的发病率和死亡率相关。尽管缺乏临床数据,但由于担心药代动力学和生物利用度,向口服治疗过渡传统上使用氟喹诺酮类药物或甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲恶唑而不是β -内酰胺类药物。本荟萃分析的目的是评估口服β -内酰胺治疗单纯GNB的临床疗效。方法:我们对MEDLINE、Embase和Web of Science数据库从成立到2024年9月发表的文章进行了荟萃分析。纳入标准包括来自任何来源的无并发症GNB的成人(年龄在0 - 18岁)的任何研究。主要结局包括30天全因死亡率和30天抗生素失败率。结果:回顾了8项回顾性队列研究,包括7500例患者。氟喹诺酮类药物/甲氧苄啶-磺胺甲恶唑组的患者数量是β -内酰胺类药物组的两倍(4998对2482)。两组患者的平均年龄(70比71)、男性比例(54%比56%)、尿源比例(78%比80%)、静脉注射抗生素持续时间(4.2比4.5)、皮特菌血症评分(1.1比1.4)和查尔斯顿共病指数(2比2)相似。氟喹诺酮类药物/甲氧苄氨嘧啶-磺胺甲恶唑组与β -内酰胺类药物组30天全因死亡率无统计学差异。2.06%对1.89%,加权相对风险比为1.24(95%可信区间[CI]: 0.86-1.77),或30天抗生素失败率:2.08%对3.42%,加权相对风险比为1.29 (95% CI: 0.97-1.71)。结论:BL与FQ/TMP-SMX过渡到口服治疗无并发症GNB的30天死亡率或抗生素失败率无统计学差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信